Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[WanderingWinder]

I'm guessing if you played a bunch of Alchemy-heavy games, you'd change your tune about these two (in terms of how they play in Alchemy-heavy games, not where they appear on your power rankings).

Ah, well maybe we are just both misunderstanding - I am not talking about alchemy-heavy games there, still just going on the all-random!

Disagreements so far:

Feast: Yes, Silver is better, but I don't always want Silver.  I just want to guarantee I get that Witch or Wharf or whatever next shuffle.  Maybe I'm doing a Scrying Pool engine and I want to ditch all my Treasures, not add to them.

Well, sometimes you don't want silver, but you also need to not want any other 3 or 4 cost cards. And there really aren't many games where you don't want any 3 or 4 cost cards, *really* don't want silver, and are very focused on getting to $5 *one time*. Hey, it's not that they don't exist, but they're rare, and feast usually isn't *that* much of an upgrade even in these situations. Of course the card is a useful thing to have in your deck, but it rarely meets the opportunity cost.

Mine: Mine is a great card!  Yes, there are other cards that are more powerful than it, and it may just be a "terminal Copper", but the point is to get it early (your first $5, preferably) so it can be used often.  It's one of the lynchpins of the First Game engine, turning your Coppers into Golds for Remodel to turn into Provinces.

I have no idea how Mine can be a 'great' card. Maybe your definition of 'great' is really loose, and most cards are 'great'. Getting it early, man, that's not my idea of a "I'm going to win this game" plan. Sure, sometimes it's the best move, but I can't recall ever having been like 'Sweet, I got 5, I can get my mine!' or paying $6+ for mine, which is something I will do with virtually every other 5-cost. As for it being a 'lynchpin' of the First Game engine... well, it's useful int hat engine, but I *really* don't think it's a lynchpin - and that is a board which could almost have been designed to show the card off. Again, has it's uses, but they can't all be the best card. Something has to be last.

Pirate Ship: This can be underrated and overrated.  It doesn't need to be in a 4-player game, and there doesn't need to be +Buy.  Just get a couple of them, hit your opponent 4-5 times, and now you're buying a Province whenever it's in your hand.

Problem is, this consistently loses to Big Money *with no help*, which is supposed to be the strategy it's countering, right?

Philosopher's Stone: This is great in sloggy games.  True, you won't see it or your Potion very often, but when you do, It can easily add a Province to your Gardens deck.

I disagree. It's great to *have* in sloggy games, sure. But you are now wasting a card on that potion, and probably one of your key early ones. And then you are buying a PStone, which saps more time. And then you get something which is worth a reasonably high amount of money. But every potion and P stone could have been, say, another gardens. If it's a slog mirror, you are putting yourself too far behind. If you are playing a non-mirror, poaching provinces is not really in the game plan anyway - your alt VP card should be worth at least almost as much as province, and your province helps them end the game on you. I mean, I have found some uses for it in mountebank games with nothing going on, but you sort of need ti to fall right, and it's still not the hugest of improvements.

Taxman: You don't understand this card.

Care to enlighten me?

Trade Route: Trashing is nice at the beginning of the game, though admittedly Forager is essentially the better version of this.  Whether to buy an Estate or not becomes a strategic decision (which I find interesting), but even just being able to trash a little can help you out, and then it becomes a powerhouse later in the game.

Trashing IS nice at the beginning of the game. Unfortunately this card doesn't do it for you. You are adding what is essentially a worthless card, so next shuffle you actually have MORE junk, the shuffle after you are only back to even, and the shuffle after that you finally see some thinning. And it's terminal. It's absolutely not worth it at 0. And trashing one, getting a buy and a couple of coins isn't really my idea of a powerhouse in the late game - the problem is, it usually has cost you a $5 in terms of opportunity, either because you bought it late when it was good (most often you are producing 5 most every hand by now) or you bought it early instead of something else which could have propelled you to $5 where this did not.

Rats: You read my article on this, right?  The whole point of this card is for other things to trash it.  So yes, without cost- or type-caring TfBs in the kingdom, Rats is useless - but there will usually be some sort of cost- or type-caring TfB in the kingdom.  Is it worth the opportunity cost to buy a single Rats before buying your Bishop or Salvager or Apprentice?  YES.

I did read your article. Now, let's count the cards which Rats is potentially helped by: Remodel, Swindler, Saboteur, Upgrade, Salvager, Apprentice, Transmute, Watchtower, Bishop, Expand, Forge, Remake, Develop, Trader, Farmland, Procession, Graverobber, Rogue, Stonemason, Butcher, Governor. Okay, I didn't include things like Trade Route, where the card you get from trashing it might be a boon, but I included stuff like Rogue and transmute which probably shouldn't be in here, really. Anyway, there's 21 cards here, and given we have 9 kingdom spots left and there are 204 cards total... There's about a 63% chance that one of these cards will appear with Rats. Now if we take out a bunch of these which are sort of ridiculous includes, I think the actual list of cards that might make me want to go rats is more like, Vineyard, Scrying Pool, Remodel, Upgrade, Salvager,
Apprentice, Bishop, Forge, Develop, Trader, Butcher. Now, I think I'm being generous here, and this is 11 cards, but let's fudge and say there are 15. This would get you to a 50-50 shot of having one. But the problem is, I usually STILL would rather do something else. I dunno, you're probably right in that I am under-rating these guys, but I stick by them being pretty bad.

[WanderingWinder]

Question: How are you ranking these cards? I mean, are you ranking them by:

- how much the card will make a difference to either your overall strategy or the game when it's in the kingdom?
- how powerful the card is when it's in your hand (in games in which buying it is a good idea), as in, how much it will benefit your turn?
- how often buying the card is a good move?
- a combination of the second and third above?
- how much the card helps your deck when you buy it

(and of course, all of the above include "relative to the card's cost")

I ask because just saying "I'm ranking the cards by how "good" or "powerful" it is" can be vague. As an example, pearl diver is not powerful at all, but in a kingdom with no other 2 costs you will usually buy it when you have 2 coins. On the other hand, Outpost is a card that isn't good all that often, but in some engines can be crazy powerful. If you were to ask me "which card do you think is better, pearl diver or outpost?" I would have a hard time answering that without clarification.

I'm ranking them based on what is best, yes it's vague. But to try to explain, it's a combination of 'How often do I want this card over the alternatives' and 'When I do get it, how much better am I for having gotten it than the alternative?" with a little bit of "How does this change how I play even if nobody buys it maybe" (e.g. Noble Brigand really dissuades Silver/Gold strategies, Young Witch makes you get banes you otherwise wouldn't, etc.)

So I guess I would say "How much more likely am I to win by getting this card compared to the best alternative, averaged over all possible kingdoms". Now that might be a little confusing, because you don't count it as extra negative when it's not the best alternative - it just gets a 0 above baseline in those cases.

I hope this makes things clearer, but I fear that it does not.

[Drab Emordnilap]

Okay, so here's the thing with Taxman. A lot of times, the upgraded treasure going on top of your deck is actually better for you than it going into your current hand, because your current hand has already been weakened by the fact that it had a Taxman instead of, say, a Silver. So the topdecking isn't as detrimental as it seems.

The other half of it is the attack, and that's what makes it strong. Cutpurse is a strong attack early (Equal to or greater than Militia), and later on, when you're less likely to hit their Copper, you have a chance of destroying a turn if you hit Silver. Taxman isn't any good in engine games, but if your opponent's economy needs treasure, it's great.

[LastFootnote]

Ah, well maybe we are just both misunderstanding - I am not talking about alchemy-heavy games there, still just going on the all-random!

Hmm, perhaps. I thought this quote was addressing high-Alchemy boards and saying that you still don't want P. Stone because of Scrying Pool, etc.:

I feel like this is more or less what I was saying? The issue here is probably that in laying with like 5 alchemy cards is really disproportionate, because there are only 13, you are going to see combos all the time.

Apologies if I misunderstood.

[WrathOfGlod]

I have to say that pirate ship is the card I  most disagree with in this ranking. On a deck with a strong engine but no other virtual money pirate ship can be a must buy as once you get your engine up you can pin the player relying on treasure cards while simultaneously getting up to 2 province buy potential.

It isn't a strong card, but I would guess on roughly 5-10% of the boards, pirate ship is a solid buy and in around half of those it is a must buy. That is far far higher than secret chamber or harvest and definitely superior to thief.

I think you need to re-examine your math. Do you know how few cards give +buy without any virtual coin? Hamlet, Market Square, worker's village... So you have, Pirate Ship, and One of those, and the rest of your cards also don't provide virtual coin, and they make a strong engine. And otherwise, you aren't getting 2 provinces a turn. Actually, they are probably not getting so many treasures that you could really get 2 treasures a turn anyway. I mean, okay, it can be good if you already have zanily good engines where you are overdrawing your deck and are swimming in actions, but I have to tell you, not only is such a situation rare, but there are lots of other cards that would work in that situation as well. So it's like, Pirate Ship is good there, yes, but it's not so much the pirate ship that's good, it's the everything else which is good.

There exist a not insignificant fraction of boards where you can draw your whole deck and play 3-4 pirate ships a turn after around 12 turns but the +coin is not strong enough to compete with bm otherwise (ie +coin is something like bazaar or treasury). I would guess that pirate ship can crush any money based strategy on those boards even without +buy because it can force a pin well before the 50% VP point. I should clarify that I think pirate ship is virtually never an early buy, instead it has value when bought reactively once the engine has been completed if your opponent has been going for bm.

[LastFootnote]

Do you know how few cards give +buy without any virtual coin? Hamlet, Market Square, worker's village...

...Council Room, sometimes Pawn, Wharf, Tactician, Margrave, arguably Candlestick Maker, Sir Martin...

That might be it. Did I miss any?

[SirPeebles]

Counterfeit and Contraband give +buy without virtual coin...

[michaeljb]

Counterfeit and Contraband give +buy without virtual coin...

Although technically, the coin Market gives you is just as real as the coin Copper gives you. I guess that means my point is just that "virtual coin" is kind of meaningless.

edit: or that the "virtual" really just means "from an Action" instead of "not quite real"

[WanderingWinder]

I have to say that pirate ship is the card I  most disagree with in this ranking. On a deck with a strong engine but no other virtual money pirate ship can be a must buy as once you get your engine up you can pin the player relying on treasure cards while simultaneously getting up to 2 province buy potential.

It isn't a strong card, but I would guess on roughly 5-10% of the boards, pirate ship is a solid buy and in around half of those it is a must buy. That is far far higher than secret chamber or harvest and definitely superior to thief.

I think you need to re-examine your math. Do you know how few cards give +buy without any virtual coin? Hamlet, Market Square, worker's village... So you have, Pirate Ship, and One of those, and the rest of your cards also don't provide virtual coin, and they make a strong engine. And otherwise, you aren't getting 2 provinces a turn. Actually, they are probably not getting so many treasures that you could really get 2 treasures a turn anyway. I mean, okay, it can be good if you already have zanily good engines where you are overdrawing your deck and are swimming in actions, but I have to tell you, not only is such a situation rare, but there are lots of other cards that would work in that situation as well. So it's like, Pirate Ship is good there, yes, but it's not so much the pirate ship that's good, it's the everything else which is good.

There exist a not insignificant fraction of boards where you can draw your whole deck and play 3-4 pirate ships a turn after around 12 turns but the +coin is not strong enough to compete with bm otherwise (ie +coin is something like bazaar or treasury). I would guess that pirate ship can crush any money based strategy on those boards even without +buy because it can force a pin well before the 50% VP point. I should clarify that I think pirate ship is virtually never an early buy, instead it has value when bought reactively once the engine has been completed if your opponent has been going for bm.

I find it very very hard to imagine a board where I can consistently draw my deck with the ability to have 3-4 extra actions per turn AND time to buy 3-4 extra cards which aren't actually help my engine draw AND the ability to draw this essentially dead cards with the rest of my engine consistently by turn 12(!), ESPECIALLY on a board where I would ever ever consider Big Money even if there weren't Pirate Ships. Actually, I would guess you can't even design such a kingdom if you're trying. But even beyond this, I think you're overestimating the ability of PS to pin the opponent. In a mythical kingdom like the one you're describing, the opponent can probably set up the engine and then buy one to two treasures. It's going to be really hard to consistently hit only one or two from a sea of actions and green cards, and even if you can, there is enough virtual coin to just replace them the next turn.

This *kind* of thing is the place where PS might be useful. But more, it's where the engine isn't so powerful but the opponent might want to go for a slog, say.

[Robz888]

Very cool that you are doing this!

I think you and I tend to agree on relative strengths of cards, so I'm not surprised that I mostly agree entirely with you so far. Put me in the camp of people who also find Taxman to be incredibly, incredibly weak, so I'm gad you put it where you did. Of course, that's one card that is so new, we could be wrong, but so far I don't think so.

Yeah, Scout and Adventurer. It's Scout and Adventurer, isn't it? I would actually give the nod to Adventurer, but maybe not. You're right: Adventurer is so bad because it COULD be fixed, it's like the one card for which this is true: It should just cost $5, and be a bad $5, although not the worst $5, probably not worse than Harvest.

Scout, though, just can't be fixed. It's bad at any price point.*

*Actually, it would be really nice for free, or gained for free like Duchess.

[brokoli]

I like to read advices from advanced opponents, but these ranking lists start to bore me a little. Everything is debatable I think. And well, I don't agree that much with this list. And I especially think Harvest is the new most underrated card of the world (well, sometimes it's fortune teller, it depends on the context), and if I'm only a 5500 player, I have the nerve to think I understand this card more than many more experienced people.
Also feast is maybe not a game-changer, but is interesting with Duke. I like it because every card doesn't need to be game-changing.

[HiveMindEmulator]

Taxman is a lot weaker that I thought it was when I first read it. It would be really strong if you didn't have to gain the treasure, but as is, it can't actually make your deck any smaller. Still, it's an attack that slows down the game, and while doing so somewhat improves the quality of your deck, so there's some value in that. You can potentially slowly build a big drawing engine that hangs on to all the Silver/Gold and keep the attack working all game. It may not be spectacular, but it can't be that much worse than Bureaucrat as your list seems to suggest.

[WanderingWinder]

I like to read advices from advanced opponents, but these ranking lists start to bore me a little. Everything is debatable I think. And well, I don't agree that much with this list. And I especially think Harvest is the new most underrated card of the world (well, sometimes it's fortune teller, it depends on the context), and if I'm only a 5500 player, I have the nerve to think I understand this card more than many more experienced people.
Also feast is maybe not a game-changer, but is interesting with Duke. I like it because every card doesn't need to be game-changing.

You know, that is all fine. You could just ignore the thread if you don't like it. But the point is not to give lists as if from on high of 'this is how it is, and this is how it shall be'. The point is to spur discussion. So like, you think Harvest is underrated - this is exactly the kind of thing I like to see talked about. Why do you think so? What is it that I am missing about the card. And we can do interesting comparisons.

For instance, we can compare Harvest to Navigator. Navigator always makes 2, Harvest makes 1-4 (usually 2-4, probably most often 3 followed by 4 followed by 2, 3 being about average). Navigator looks at one more card than Harvest. Navigator lets you keep the cards on top of your deck if you want. Navigator lets you re-order the cards if you keep them. Navigator costs less. Harvest can be sapped at no money if you draw all of your deck, whereas Navigator can't. So almost the only thing for Harvest here is that it tends to make more money. Okay, that is one of the most significant factors here, obviously. But I also think the cost is really big, as Harvest has a lot more to compete with at $5 than Navigator does at $4. So it seems to me that Navigator is pretty clearly better than Harvest.

Little analyses like ^that^ are some of my favorite things to do.

And you are right, Feast is pretty good with Duke. Basically every card does get its time to shine, and that's one of the great things about the game.

[WanderingWinder]

Taxman is a lot weaker that I thought it was when I first read it. It would be really strong if you didn't have to gain the treasure, but as is, it can't actually make your deck any smaller. Still, it's an attack that slows down the game, and while doing so somewhat improves the quality of your deck, so there's some value in that. You can potentially slowly build a big drawing engine that hangs on to all the Silver/Gold and keep the attack working all game. It may not be spectacular, but it can't be that much worse than Bureaucrat as your list seems to suggest.

Yeah, the Bureaucrat comparison is a really interesting one. The attacks - both effectively take the opponent down to a 4 card hand when successful, Taxman now, Bureaucrat on the next turn. Taxman actually makes them discard, but B-crat anti-cycles. Of course, one will hit more often. B-crat can occasionally multi-hit, but Taxman can't hit anyone below a 5-card hand. Overall, I think this is really close, but a slight edge to taxman.
Okay, then there is the mine vs silver gain aspect. If you are going copper->silver, Bureaucrat is usually better, I think. Yes, the copper isn't in your deck anymore, but you are hardly playing the card for that purpose, and you don't have to cutpurse yourself right now. Other flexibility helps Taxman, but... well the thing is, overall, I think I would rather gain silver than mine, on a terminal at least. Why? Well, the mining effect just isn't something that has a deck type it seems all that suited for. Bureaucrat's silver flood at least has a niche of doing well in slogs. Because of this archetypal home, I like Bureaucrat as a clear advantage overall, but of course the gap *isn't* that big.

[florrat]

Very nice idea to make such a list. Looking forward to all explanations and corresponding discussions!

To keep things organized, maybe there should be one topic with WW's analysis and explanations, and one topic for discussions? Or something like that... Otherwise WW's explanations will be all scattered on pages 1-25 if the list is completed. Or maybe add a link from the first post of this thread to the corresponding card explanations?

Just an idea, feel free to ignore.

[Titandrake]

Here's something that might help in understanding Taxman better.

Pretend it's Noble Brigand. Buy it when you would buy Noble Brigand, and see what happens.

I'm saying this partly because I want my Guilds predictions to come true (of which I'm about 50/50 on right now.) The power of one Taxman is going to be very weak. But, if you buy a lot of Taxmen, such that you're playing one every turn, it gets more interesting. Think of it this way: if you Taxman a Silver every turn, you're both gaining Gold and hitting your opponent with -$2 fairly often, if the board isn't very strong. Now obviously you can't guarantee a hit every turn, but it's not as difficult as it sounds.

See: http://dom.retrobox.eu/?/20130630/log.50612f220cf2d91d287a93b8.1372623180446.txt

I don't see anything particularly interesting about this kingdom, so I try Taxman-BM. I upgrade some Coppers early on, then get some good Silver hits. Taxman topdeck + Mandarin buys help me get good hands, and I manage to get through.

Again, I'm not sure how strong this is. Taxman is pretty much a dead card in late game. But Noble Brigand is a Copper in late game, and that doesn't stop it from being nice in the right games.

[Schneau]

One note about Feast: Yes, you can usually buy a Silver to get to $5. But, on that turn, if you had a Feast instead, you could still get the $5 card and have $3 to spend on something else -- if that something else is a Silver, you're in the exact same position as if you had bought Silver, but if you would prefer a Village over a Silver, then you are better off. Of course, you wouldn't want to do this if your other buy is a terminal, but it might be better than Silver/Silver for some engines.

[dondon151]

Why is Expand so low?

[Eevee]

Why is Expand so low?

195.   Expand
Expand, a seven cost. Yeah, the problem is, this is so expensive for something that's not a great effect. Remodel is the obvious comparison. and remodel is a decent enough card, though not great, but what is the real use of remodel? The biggest thing is turning estates into engine components. It can also have some usefulness later on in upgrading cards which have outlived their own purposes, and it can turn gold into province or speed the end of the game. Expand does these things hardly better at all, and it costs a heck of a lot more. And it doesn't open up many new strategies either - using all 3 of its expanding powers just doesn't come up that often. It's often like a worse mine, or a worse taxman, or a worse graverobber, or a worse rebuild, or a worse altar, and it's more expensive than all these cards, to boot. The flexibility to do all those different things, but it doesn't save the card altogether.

[dondon151]

I'm sorry, I wasn't really asking why Expand is so low; it was more of an "I disagree so I'm going to ask a question that implies that I disagree" kind of thing. Whoops.

[Powerman]

Very very good listing and reasoning!  A few nitpicks though:

Scout > Adventurer :  Opportunity cost
Feast > Transmute : Again, opportunity cost difference is just too high
Mine > Thief : Much more utility, at least is a card that is good (albeit with more competition), but with 5 you would almost certainly prefer a Mine to a Thief.
Royal Seal should be switched with Stash.  The acceleration of an early RS is much more power than the placement of Stash.  Stash needs 3-4 minimum to be at all effective, one RS can help a budding engine.

[Tables]

I'm sorry, I wasn't really asking why Expand is so low; it was more of an "I disagree so I'm going to ask a question that implies that I disagree" kind of thing. Whoops.

Maybe expound on why you disagree? What makes it a better card, in your view, than what WW said,?

[AJD]

I'm sorry, I wasn't really asking why Expand is so low; it was more of an "I disagree so I'm going to ask a question that implies that I disagree" kind of thing. Whoops.

Maybe expound on why you disagree? What makes it a better card, in your view, than what WW said,?

Yes, please expend the energy to expound on Expand.

[SirPeebles]

I'm sorry, I wasn't really asking why Expand is so low; it was more of an "I disagree so I'm going to ask a question that implies that I disagree" kind of thing. Whoops.

Maybe expound on why you disagree? What makes it a better card, in your view, than what WW said,?

Yes, please expend the energy to expound on Expand.

He'll be an ex-pundit in no time.

[Tables]

I'm sorry, I wasn't really asking why Expand is so low; it was more of an "I disagree so I'm going to ask a question that implies that I disagree" kind of thing. Whoops.

Maybe expound on why you disagree? What makes it a better card, in your view, than what WW said,?

Yes, please expend the energy to expound on Expand.

An exactly excellent explanantion.